Internet Sales Tax Gets a New Champion 276
Archness1 writes with an excerpt from Declan McCullagh's piece at CNET about the recently renewed push for a sales tax on Internet purchases, led by Massachusetts Representative Bill Delahunt. "At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors usually aren't required to pay sales taxes. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H Photo, for example, won't be required to cough up the sales taxes that they would if shopping at a local mall." That could all change, though.
And then there are New Yorkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Who always get screwed by our over-taxing, yet somehow insolvent, state government.
Legalize pot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxation is the power to destroy - Marshall, John (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah another hurdle for business where the cost will be given to the consumer as it always is. That's what I find to be most funny. Give the business's any sort of tax and the tax goes upon the heads of the people. So in the end the consumer is taxed the most. Which means the majority is taxed the most. Would it not be better to let the people decide where their money should go. So that maybe people could have money to make a hobby a business or even to have a hobby.
Taxation is the power to destroy which means they constantly want to destroy us the people, on capital hill.
Stop killing us with theft and extortion.
Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of allowing them to constantly add new programs and new spending, how about electing some folks on the platform to reduce spending until you have a balanced budget (which means you won't need any new taxes), and then reduce spending, which means you'll need less taxes.
Make some noise. At the state level, you might even get something done.
One of the biggest problems our government has is an inability to revisit past decisions; bad law, bad spending, obsolete law, obsolete spending. All they ever do is add; that's a key reason why taxes go up, freedoms narrow, and law-books only get heavier.
Seems fair (Score:4, Insightful)
As nice as it is with cheap stuff, I cannot come up with a good argument why internet sales should be except from tax while in-store sales still pay. Internet stores can compete just fine on actual efficiency improvements over physical stores.
depends on what state you live in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone (Score:2, Insightful)
It might be a start to stop electing so many dang lawyers.
Re:I have never understood this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why this is stupid is because the tax would be going to the wrong place!
If I purchase something online, then the tax, if I am required to pay it, should go to that small city in Pennsylvania where their warehouse is located, not my local municipal. That's the place I am buying from, anyhow. The internet is like a magical doorway that teleports me into their store, all the way across the country, where I browse around and make a purchase. Then the internet teleports me back and I wait for them to ship it.
If the states wanted to argue that they needed to tax goods coming in from other states that would be one thing, but that isn't within their constitutional powers. Interstate commerce is governed by the federal level of government. Which makes the whole argument even more ridiculous.
How the government will FIST you (Score:4, Insightful)
If the states wanted to argue that they needed to tax goods coming in from other states that would be one thing, but that isn't within their constitutional powers. Interstate commerce is governed by the federal level of government.
Then the federal government has the power to tax interstate business-to-consumer mail order and use that to fund currently unfunded mandates. I probably won't read the bill until it hits the House floor, but a federal interstate sales tax sounds like one way to implement what the article discusses.
It's just to to make things "fair". (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it's not a federal tax. (Score:2, Insightful)
Each state has the right to run itself as it deems necessary for the survival of it's citizens. If it wants to be run in a socialist manner or not is entirely up to the state and I say that as a libertarian. The point is to have minimal interference from federal entities who know nothing about the dynamics of the states they interfere with.
Healthcare should be handled and paid for by individual states for the citizens in that state. If individuals live in states which don't have universal healthcare then they should move to states that do. If the feds want to help the states which provide universal healthcare they should be allowed to. What we don't want is federally controlled healthcare.
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great for Massachusetts. My state also has a balanced budget (Montana.) But the rest of the country... not so much. Many states (California, anyone?) are spending into the future, and the feds are definitely spending into the future, and on hugely wasteful and harmful operations (like two useless wars, being the police for much of the world, the drug war (also a state problem), etc., etc.) If things are balanced, then you need NO new taxes. If you're cutting costs, likewise, only you should be reducing taxes.
As for Glen Beck, no. Really, really bad guess. :) Not right wing, not left, not middle. An intent to hold rational positions on most matters. Which puts me all over the spectrum. I'm for a society that makes medical care as important a priority as education, against making war outside our borders, strongly conservative in the constitutional sense, but strongly biased against tolerance of religion, superstition, spin and deception because they are tools that unfairly leverage the left side of the Gaussian - intellectual snake oil. I don't think people should be free to lie or make unsubstantiated claims; I don't think people should be forced to speak; I think the deceived have been injured in the most practical sense of the term.
Taxation is necessary for government to run. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to pay for cops, for firefighters, for medics, in some cases for healthcare and schools.
The problems start when one state has to pay for another state. Why would people in one state want to help people who aren't even their neighbors, who don't contribute to their state at all, who don't benefit their state in any direct way?
Libertarian socialism is the answer. Tax locally. Govern locally. Fight wars federally. Build infrastructure federally. Maximize individual liberty.
Re:It's just to to make things "fair". (Score:5, Insightful)
How about letting the feds be the war machine? (Score:4, Insightful)
And stop using the feds for social programs? We have state governments for social programs. The state reps who actually are our neighbors have a better idea of what is best for our state because they actually live in our state rather than in Washington DC like the majority of Senators and establishment types.
Healthcare is not something the feds are qualified to handle. The feds cannot even handle public education. That being said if the feds would like to fund it without any expectation of control that is something I can support as a libertarian, but then you have the problem of how much money to give to each state which causes problems in itself.
Ideally the local governments should handle the social programs if we are to have any form of socialism at all. The federal and global government should focus on winning wars and building infrastructure.
Democrats want to tax the people? (Score:1, Insightful)
Unheard of.
I thought the dems were the party of the little guy, you know you fools. How could they be doing this to you?
How come all their programs end up hurting the little guys, did you ever wonder that?
Taxes up, little guy pays. Healthcare, affects the little guy not the elites. Can and trade, will increase costs to all the little guys (you fools). Card check - again afffects the little guy.
Conservatives give tax cuts, and the taxes of the little guy go down, but you fools call them evil.
You dumb leftists don't know your asses from a hole in the ground.
Re:As long as it's not a federal tax. (Score:2, Insightful)
We? Speak for yourself. I do want federally controlled healthcare. I want private sector medical insurance to be illegal, and medical care to be universal just as education is universal, only more so. I am delighted to see we've taken a few baby steps in that direction. A society that doesn't put the health and education of its citizens first is, in my opinion, wrongheaded - and I'm trying to be polite about it.
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
ok, why? Wouldn't that money be better spent invested in improving our infrastructure, investing in technology, education, and healthcare?
What threats do we actually face that require the military we're maintaining at the moment? Why do we need to be pursuing the military actions we presently are, and why do we need to be the world's police presence?
I'm intrigued by your idea that we should *increase* the military. Seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Please explain yourself.
Re:As long as it's not a federal tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
We? Speak for yourself. I do want federally controlled healthcare. I want private sector medical insurance to be illegal, and medical care to be universal just as education is universal, only more so. I am delighted to see we've taken a few baby steps in that direction. A society that doesn't put the health and education of its citizens first is, in my opinion, wrongheaded - and I'm trying to be polite about it.
Thats because you credulously have faith in the federal authorities. Do you not realize that they don't really care about citizens in your state because they don't spend time living among them? So you get exactly the level of representation that you deserve when you put all your faith into the establishment responsible for fighting wars. The talk about death panels might be conspiracy theory but it's the same government that tested viruses on it's own military. It's the same government that gets paranoid and sees everybody and everything as a potential enemy.
Do you really want the Pentagon, DOD, and individuals like this to be in control of healthcare? Do you really believe this could be better than having your neighbor who you grew up with in control? Do you know any of these people in the Pentagon to have faith in them like this?
You can put the health and education of your citizens first by focusing on reforming your local government to put this first. You probably have no influence on the federal government which may or may not be influenced by foreigners. So you could end up with federal agendas which promote ignorance and sickness because. Not everything coming from the federal government is free from corruption because the federal government operates on the international level and other nations can easily influence politicians in DC, perhaps even more easily than you can.
Re:And then there are New Yorkers (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep, New York, in the New York City metro area (5 boroughs) it's even worse. I paid $12 for a pack of Cigarettes today. Yet I can get "illegal" firearms and drugs duty free! It's gonna be a great ride in November when we vote everyone out who voted "yes" against the people.
Think about it, every time these people come out into the public, roll out the red carpet, strike up the band, trumpets, clapping, flashbulbs and cameras? They are the least among us, we are led by the least among us.
Time for an ass kicking and a beat down.
Use tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of allowing them to constantly add new programs and new spending, how about electing some folks on the platform to reduce spending until you have a balanced budget (which means you won't need any new taxes), and then reduce spending, which means you'll need less taxes.
Make some noise. At the state level, you might even get something done.
One of the biggest problems our government has is an inability to revisit past decisions; bad law, bad spending, obsolete law, obsolete spending. All they ever do is add; that's a key reason why taxes go up, freedoms narrow, and law-books only get heavier.
Why is this modded insightful? This is just a regurgitation of the tired old point of view that the government came from some mysterious place that the commentor is in no way responsible for.
We don't allow "them" to do anything. We vote for "them", over and over. The commentor wants "them" to spend less money on wasteful (meaning not of use to the commentor) programs and stop making "bad" (meaning not in line with the commentor's opinions) decisions.
Taxes go up because the voters want more spending. Simple as that. When the elderly mail back Social Security checks en masse, when Raytheon refunds contract money they couldn't spend, when the sugar industry tells Congress to let Caribbean sugar in without a tariff - basically, when unicorn pigs fly out of your deceased grandmothers ass - that is when your idealistic solutions will be implemented.
Re:Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday refused to rule out a tax hike [emphasis mine] next year - handing his opposition a hot campaign issue - as he signed a pared-back $27.6 billion budget and looked ahead to an estimated $2 billion deficit [emphasis mine] with a nearly dry rainy day fund. [heraldinteractive.com]
Those are the facts, no matter how you slice them. They have drained our state's savings, continue to overspend, and continue to raise taxes. Mind you, this is the same guy who got into office and immediately started spending money on himself (office, car, etc) way beyond what was appropriate. He (and his liberal tax-and-spend buddies in the MA houses of congress) has spent us to ruin.
Massachusetts has been abused by its corrupt politicians for decades. It is STILL Taxachusetts. Pick on Glenn Beck after you get your facts straight.
Re:I have never understood this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mind it a lot for several reasons:
Sales tax shouldn't be expanded. Sales tax should be reduced and possibly eliminated. It is pretty much the worst kind of tax you can create because it discourages spending that is necessary for a healthy economy, is hardest on the people who can least afford it, and has a tendency to drop off steeply when the states need the money the most. Pushing for expanding sales tax betrays a lack of even a basic understanding of economics. It's the sort of thing politicians like because it "closes loopholes" instead of "raising taxes", but in the long run, it will only harm the U.S. economy and drive sales tax revenue down.
Re:Everyone (Score:1, Insightful)
Instead of allowing them to constantly add new programs and new spending, how about electing some folks on the platform to reduce spending until you have a balanced budget (which means you won't need any new taxes), and then reduce spending, which means you'll need less taxes.
Make some noise. At the state level, you might even get something done.
One of the biggest problems our government has is an inability to revisit past decisions; bad law, bad spending, obsolete law, obsolete spending. All they ever do is add; that's a key reason why taxes go up, freedoms narrow, and law-books only get heavier.
Right. Government never should have wasted money on developing the internet. Then we wouldn't have to listen to selfish people who inherited most of their wealth complain about how they "earned it".We didn't make this the richest country on earth, we received it as a birthright from the investments and sacrifices of previous generations. The real problem is that people are now more interested in their own creature comforts than in the legacy they are leaving for the future. Marble countertops, leather automobile seats and fancy Halloween decorations are all more important than educating the next generation or investing in the future.
Re:depends on what state you live in (Score:3, Insightful)
Massachusetts, Representative Delahunt's home state, is one such state. The income tax forms' instructions also contain a chart that if you pay X dollars on this line based on your income, then the state won't say you owe more if they audit you. Of course, that amount excludes purchases of $1,000 or more. On those, you are to report the full amount owed. They typically call it a "Use Tax," and I mostly grew up in Kentucky which has pretty much the same laws, and it is typically charged at the same rate as a sales tax.
I live about 1 mile (1.6 km for those with a rational measurement system) from the border with New Hampshire, a state that does not have a sales tax. (They do have a service tax on restaurant meals and hotel visits, etc. that is higher than the sales tax and similar taxes in Massachusetts.) There has also been a lot of bluster from Massachusetts lately, including some court cases where the judge basically said "What, are you crazy?" to the Mass. AG, about having certain businesses on the NH side of the border collect Mass. sales tax on Mass. residents who buy from them. The latest row was over car parts and tires.
Interestingly, the car dealerships in Salem, NH (the fist town you come to if you cross the border where I live) do collect the Mass. sales taxes and will often handle your Mass. vehicle registration, etc. as would a Mass. car dealer.
The reason that states like Mass. want the business owner to collect the taxes is that they know that they cannot rely on self-reporting by the tax payer to get the amount of tax that they say that they are owed. I typically report the minimum listed by our family's income in the chart, just to be safe, because I do not keep track of purchases that I make in New Hampshire. My wife and I typically shop at several store in Salem, NH because they are physically closer to our house than other stores that might carry the same goods in Mass. We do NOT do it to avoid paying sales tax. However, we typically buy more food than anything else at these stores, and food is exempt from sales and use tax in Massachusetts. The taxable goods that we buy in these stores are typically smaller items, such as household necessities: cleaning powders and fluids, batteries, etc. We occasionally buy toys for our daughter, books and other inexpensive items.
By reporting the minimum, I'm hedging my bets if audited (not likely to happen since we don't really make enough to raise any flags) and in our case we could be over reporting the amount we actually owe. I don't know anyone who has said to me that they shop in New Hampshire to avoid paying sales tax. Typically, it's a convenience thing because the closest outlet of the particular store that you want to visit to get something is just a couple miles away in New Hampshire or 20 miles away in Bedford, MA. I have heard, of course, that people do all their shopping in New Hampshire to avoid sales tax, but no one has ever told me that they do this, and none of my friends or my wife's relations seem to do this, since they seem to always get the same goods or types of goods at the same store in Mass. and in NH.
Personally, I think the constitutionality of the Use Tax is dubious, but then I think the constitutionality of nearly everything done by gov't at all levels today is dubious. I pay the use tax simply to keep out of trouble. The few dollars that it costs me in a typical refund is nothing compared the aggravation of an audit and then having to prove that you don't owe whatever the state says you owe on out of state purchases.
Someone who made the point above about getting gov't to reduce spending and reduce taxation has an excellent point. Those of us who work for a living and those who have a "fixed" income have to learn to live within a certain budget. The gov't ought to be held to the same standard and they ought to be required to function on a fixed budget. They need to stop paying for unnecessary or obsolete programs. They need to try earning their keep for a change and see how far that goes.
To twist the words of Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with [government] is you soon run out of other people's money."
Re:Taxation is necessary for government to run. (Score:3, Insightful)
With the exception of "cops", I'm in agreement with you.
If the cops were on the street and actually patrolling the neighborhoods, interacting with the residents and deterring crime (instead of arriving 20 minutes late and arresting the victim for putting up a defense), I'd be all for them. However, paying for them to sit in air conditioned patrol cars, isolated from everyone, writing tickets and stepping all over people's personal choices... that's ultimately worse than wasted money -- it's like paying to have someone kick your dog.
The current military budget (fed) is also not on my "we should be paying for that" list. Very little useful is being accomplished. At the state level, the drug war is *very* expensive and should be ended forthwith; streetlights are a good example of a mostly useless cost we pay without thinking (cars have headlights, strollers can use flashlights... and a lot more of us would be able to see the stars again.) There are plenty of places we should be cutting, and we're talking significant portions of the budget.
I don't support the drug war. I do support a well trained law enforcement service. I call it a service because law enforcement is supposed to serve the community they operate in, not dominate and disrupt it. The problem communities have with law enforcement stem from officers who disrupt communities that were getting along before they came along. A lot of communities were doing just fine before they started locking everyone up on drug and gun charges. And once again when a lot of fathers are locked up a lot of children do poorly in school, and more money has to be spent on education.
So the money they waste locking up drug dealers increases the cost of educating the youth. You lock up the parents and the kids suffer. I think the laws should be redesigned but I'm not in control. This is why I support local level politics because it's the only level of politics I plan to get involved with. I don't want to bother getting involved with federal politics because I don't have a federal agenda. I don't worry about stuff outside my sphere of influence.
I do think we need a strong military. The feds SHOULD be good at fighting wars. But a lot of the other stuff they get involved with is social control programs designed to satisfy elitist or racist political agendas, or special interest groups. I don't have a political agenda so I see it as a bunch of nonsense.
The feds could create jobs tomorrow if they increased the size of the military and civilian service. If the world really is as dangerous as they say it is, there will be a need for these jobs. Also there will be a need for jobs in the private sector which support or maintain national security. Only American citizens can fill these jobs.
Finally when they focus on creating jobs they need to look up statistics on what Americans are naturally good at. Some of the jobs they create like construction worker type jobs, it's a nice gesture but it's not like everyone is going to be young and will be good at that. On top of that you have a lot of Mexican labor who can do that and probably will.
Once the economy is fixed then the feds can talk about doing other things but we give the feds a lot of credit when they aren't or dont seem to be making the situation better. They focus on control and thats fine but they aren't giving the citizens anything in return, not even security because if a citizen does not have access to jobs a citizen has no security. Federally controlled healthcare does not change that.
Credulous? No. More like I pay attention. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this area, they've earned it -- it isn't that I'm credulous, it is that they are credible. What do I mean? Well, let me tell you:
They've managed to keep my meat inspected, get my kids a basic education, prevent most infected/infested fruit from reaching my table, built a really outstanding interstate system in a country of huge extents, put our citizens on the moon and in orbit and gotten pictures of far away galaxies, give me clean water to drink, and even paid for treatment of my sweetheart's breast cancer -- and I still have her for that specific reason. WRT the military, I don't like what they've got it doing at the moment (though WW1 and WW2... good job!), but I am forced to admit that it's damned good at being a military force, so yeah, they get considerable credit there as well.
In the meantime, the private sector would not insure either of us (we're oldish... 50's, and we have pre-existing conditions... she's diabetic, for instance, and has been absolutely uninsurable) and emergency room "care" is not in the least bit comparable with a normal course of treatment under a doctor and with access to the correct drugs, etc. So yeah, I'm for the feds kicking the insurance industry under the rug and starting over. They (the insurance industry) have made a complete cock-up of the opportunity they had, and so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.
Do I think the feds will get it right first thing out the door? No. Hardly. But I do think they'll nudge, wiggle and tweak their way to something better than what I have now, which is... nothing. Maybe in time for my kids to get medical care if and when they need it.
Insurance companies have a built-in conflict of interest: They make more money when they don't pay for care, and they are for-profit corporations. That's a recipe for disaster, and so I can't say that I am surprised that it is a disaster we have.
As it stands, because healthcare is private, I pay for the health care of everyone above me - the people employed by the utilities, the city employees, etc., before I get to spend a penny on my own. Which leaves me without any, as it turns out. I'd much rather see everyone taxed for healthcare, and everyone getting it when they need it, than the current, I pay it for the utility or corporate employee because it's built into my prices, but I don't *get* it because I don't have anything left and there's no one I get to say "pay me more" to in order to cover those costs.
State revenues (Score:1, Insightful)
States don't need any more more for schools! They're already WASTING record amounts of money on schools and still failing to educate some.
Bottom line here is that not all children are equally educatable nor should they ALL be expected to attend universities.
Not to mention in our state most local municipalities fund their schools through property taxes, with only a few getting state handouts(mainly a certain large and highly corrupt city along with some rural BFE areas) which ought to be pretty well covered by the stupidity tax(lottery).
You'll notice the states moaning the most are the ones with big welfare programs, i.e. California, Massachusetts, and New York which also, oddly enough, tend to have the highest number of illegal immigrants.
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
We should increase military spending and decrease social program spending...
For 2011 [wallstats.com]
Military+Security spending = 1.5 trillion
Debt Service = 0.25 trillion
Everything else = 2 trillion
It looks like we already spend WAY too much on the military.
social programs which are conclusively ineffective
Most of the social spending is in social security (prevents old people from starving) and medicare/medicaid (prevents old/poor people from dieing of treatable illness). Which of those do you propose to eliminate?
Re:Everyone (Score:2, Insightful)
That's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever heard from an American. May I remind you that in the past 50 years, the USA has not been attacked at home by a foreign state once. You fight because you have interests elsewhere you want to protect. Stop making the world a shittier place for the rest of us.
Arguably, the world would be a better place if the USA did not unilaterally screw around with other countries. From Somalia to Venezuela. From Vietnam to Afghanistan. You don't do it out of humanitarian kindness, you do it because you have a vested interest.
We have the UN for a reason. Realise that, and stick by the treaties you've signed rather than weaselling out of them on legal technicalities.
Re:Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever heard from an American. May I remind you that in the past 50 years, the USA has not been attacked at home by a foreign state once. You fight because you have interests elsewhere you want to protect. Stop making the world a shittier place for the rest of us.
Arguably, the world would be a better place if the USA did not unilaterally screw around with other countries. From Somalia to Venezuela. From Vietnam to Afghanistan. You don't do it out of humanitarian kindness, you do it because you have a vested interest.
We have the UN for a reason. Realise that, and stick by the treaties you've signed rather than weaselling out of them on legal technicalities.
Tell it to Obama. I'm just telling it like it is, I never made those decisions that you complain about.
Re:Tax religion... (Score:1, Insightful)
Churches do more than preach superstition. They often offer drug counceling, battered women shelters, etc. Sure! Let's tax them. Right now. They can pay more and stop their ignorant works.
Re:Reduce federal spending, increase state spendin (Score:1, Insightful)
Thank you for staying away. One less stuck on stupid geographical snob to deal with. Stay in the screwed up irresponsible state you're from. It pisses me off that my tax dollars will have be used, once again, to bail you idiots out of mess you created for yourselves.
Re:Reduce federal spending, increase state spendin (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you mean, "Hmm live with high taxes or live where people push their bias, instead of mine, into the school books..."
More like "Hmm live with high taxes or live where people intentionally push their bias into the school books..."
Everyone has biases, and they are bound to make their way into the books. But when a group of people who have no business messing with textbooks in the first place go in with an agenda, that is a problem